Self-Reference and Diagonalisation

This poem is an exercise on self-reference and diagonalisation in mathematics featuring Turing’s proof of the undecidability of the halting problem, Cantor’s cardinality argument, the Burali-Forti paradox, and Epimenides\u27 liar paradox

The well-ordering of sets

Thesis (M.A.)--Boston Universit

Quantification and Paradox

I argue that absolutism, the view that absolutely unrestricted quantification is possible, is to blame for both the paradoxes that arise in naive set theory and variants of these paradoxes that arise in plural logic and in semantics. The solution is restrictivism, the view that absolutely unrestricted quantification is not possible. It is generally thought that absolutism is true and that restrictivism is not only false, but inexpressible. As a result, the paradoxes are blamed, not on illicit quantification, but on the logical conception of set which motivates naive set theory. The accepted solution is to replace this with the iterative conception of set. I show that this picture is doubly mistaken. After a close examination of the paradoxes in chapters 2--3, I argue in chapters 4 and 5 that it is possible to rescue naive set theory by restricting quantification over sets and that the resulting restrictivist set theory is expressible. In chapters 6 and 7, I argue that it is the iterative conception of set and the thesis of absolutism that should be rejected

The Banach-Tarski paradox

The purpose of this thesis is to establish the history and motivation leading up to the Banach-Tarski Paradox, as well as its proof. This study discusses the early history of set theory as it is documented as well as the necessary basics of set theory in order to further understand the contents within. Set theory not only proved to be for the mathematical at heart but also struck interest into the mind of philosophers, theologians, and logicians

On the Syntax of Logic and Set Theory

We introduce an extension of the propositional calculus to include abstracts of predicates and quantifiers, employing a single rule along with a novel comprehension schema and a principle of extensionality, which are substituted for the Bernays postulates for quantifiers and the comprehension schemata of ZF and other set theories. We prove that it is consistent in any finite Boolean subset lattice. We investigate the antinomies of Russell, Cantor, Burali-Forti, and others, and discuss the relationship of the system to other set theoretic systems ZF, NBG, and NF. We discuss two methods of axiomatizing higher order quantification and abstraction, and then very briefly discuss the application of one of these methods to areas of mathematics outside of logic.Comment: 34 pages, accepted, to appear in the Review of Symbolic Logi

The Babelogic of Mathematics

How would the Bible written about a Mathematical God start, describing the Creation of Mathematics and Logic? How would Rigveda\u27s Nasadiya sukta read if it were describing the Void before mathematics was born ? Here is an attempt at a partial answer, one which takes the original Genesis chapter and the Nasadiya sukta and makes suitable changes to create a fairly consistent, if somewhat anachronistic narrative (with the slight mixing up of Bertrand Russell and Lobachevsky / Bolyai attributable to Babelogic ), along with a new ending to the Beginning..